W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL

From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:01:12 -0500
To: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
CC: Dean Allemang <dallemang@workingontologist.com>, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D11B4159.2238F%irene@topquadrant.com>
Then, we should, in our discussion, refer to the requirement and not to the
output of the workshop.

As far as the higher level language requirement, I agree with the previous
email (I think it was either from Dean or from Peter) that there is a lack
of consensus on what the requirement means and, subsequently, what would
satisfy it.

Quite a number of people believe that this requirement is addressed
thoroughly by having a well thought out library of ³core macros² with clear
semantics. And providing a way to create new macros. This does provide a
higher level language that could be used by people who donıt know SPARQL and
various engines could implement these.

The primary motivation for the requirement, as I understand, was to make it
easier for users to create constraints. Core macros together with the
ability to create additional macros satisfy the requirement. You seem to say
that the motivation for the requirement was something else. And this other
motivation(s) is not being met by the implementation.

Irene

From:  Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
Date:  Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 9:45 AM
To:  Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Cc:  Dean Allemang <dallemang@workingontologist.com>, Holger Knublauch
<holger@topquadrant.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group
<public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
wrote:
> <Because "SPARQL queries cannot easily be inspected and understood, either by
> human beings or by machines, to uncover the constraints that are to be
> respected". [1]>
> 
> I believe this has already been addressed by SHACL.

Not if we don't have a set of well defined constructs with a clear semantics
and we limit SHACL to have a single "template" construct where we can put
any SPARQL code. 
> 
> Further, at this point, we should be working from requirements, not from the
> workshop results. The working group supersedes previous requirements work by
> either turning whatever has been said before its start into its set of
> accepted requirements or not.
> 
> If you think there is a missing requirement, propose it. Then, it could be
> reviewed, shared understanding formed, accepted and the solution evaluated
> against it.

There is no missing requirement. The requirement has already been approved.
See [1]

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Higher-Level_Language

>> > On Mar 2, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Because "SPARQL queries cannot easily be inspected and understood, either
>> by human beings or by machines, to uncover the constraints that are to be
>> respected". [1]



-- 
-- Jose Labra
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2015 16:01:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:17 UTC